Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Consumer rights protection in a case regarding non-commissioning of a multi-apartment residential building and recovery of penalty sanctions for delay.
2. Key Court Arguments:
– The court recognized that the developer cannot be forcibly compelled to commission the facility
– It was established that the defendant’s fault in delay is not proven due to objective reasons (prolonged land plot re-registration procedure, change of general contractor)
– Contracts provided for penalty sanctions for delay, but to recover them, the developer’s fault must be proven
3. Court Decision: Partially modified the reasoning part of previous court decisions, but essentially left unchanged – most of the plaintiff’s claims were denied.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding interpretation of contract terms and establishing the developer’s fault.
